Chem507f10grp2

Peer Review of Wikipedia Group 2 Sandbox Jeff Hill

	If you are looking to learn more about oxidative addition reactions, this group presents a thorough and well-illustrated explanation of the key concepts and ideas. I believe there is sufficient detail present both for the casual user just looking for a general overview as well as for someone who wants to see more detail. This is exemplified by the countless mechanisms that are shown on the page. The group does a great job of explaining in words what is occurring, and then showing in pictures what is happening. This combination helps both the layman as well as the more chemistry-centered user. Wikipedia is intended to be a general information site. By providing several references, the group gives resources for those wanting to dig further into textbooks and the literature. 

The flow and structure of the site is outstanding. Each reaction is addressed in a uniform and cogent manner: a verbal description and an example mechanism or reaction to demonstrate the point. Each section contains the right amount of detail. The sections easily target many audiences, those who learn by just reading text as well as those that can learn effectively by diagrams. The images and figures used are of excellent quality and add great value to describing the concepts the page is trying to convey. The group does an excellent job of providing a variety of references for the user. With such a diverse group of references(textbooks,journals,other Wikipedia sites), the site caters to the knowledge level of the user and allows them to choose the avenues through which they seek further information. I would rate the overall presentation of this site as excellent. I took the opportunity to look at the existing oxidative addition site on Wikipedia. The upgrade in quality and presentation is impressive. The existing site doesn’t convey the necessary information about this concept well nor is it user friendly. This group has done an excellent job in taking this concept and fulfilling all requirements of the assignment. The Group 2 website takes an extended look at oxidative addition reactions. They cover all the various pathways that these reactions may take. The presentation is very orderly and the page is very user friendly. The figures and organization of this site are the strongest points. I can say with conviction there are no weak points in this page. I can’t find anything that needs to be altered or revisited.

Peer Review Wiki Group 2 Zachary Bryan

Section 1

Is the webpage suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

Overall I would say yes. Someone unfamiliar with chemistry would have some difficulty with certain topics that are presented early on including d-electron counts, oxidation state, C-H activation, etc. That being said, they introduced their topic very well, and perhaps the only addition to make this introduction better would be the inclusion of links to other existing pages that could cover the more basic concepts in more depth.

Is there sufficient detail provided to allow one to obtain an in-depth understanding of the topic if required?

Again I would say yes. However, there are certain aspects that should be included or expanded upon to enhance the overall page. For example, when discussing the mechanisms, you provide excellent visual representations of 3 of the 4 types, but only mention that ionic is similar to SN2. It might also be worth adding to this, if not visually, that the mechanism would follow the same mechanistic preference in adding (in the case of HCl) H+ first followed by Cl- second, as well as indicating the relative speeds. Although it might be implied, I did not feel this is the case (although I am not certain this preference is fact, I am merely speculating).

Another example would be the applications section. This provides the reader with tangible examples of why this is topic is important. Although we may understand it, someone unfamiliar may not. Although I am speaking generally, this is specifically true in the discussion of adiponitrile. This is mentioned, but many might not know what this is or why we should care. In this section, I would suggest expanding briefly on what the examples are and more generally why they are important reactions.

Finally, I could be incorrect, but isn’t the third step of a radical mechanism termination. If this is true, this should be at least briefly covered for completeness. It might also be easier to see using an image showing spatially the change from a linear molecule to square planar. If I am wrong, I do apologize and ignore this.

Is there a logical flow to the page?

Yes, the introduction, history, explanation, and example setup provides a logical and accessible flow to the page as a whole. As mentioned before, the only thing that could improve flow for individuals less initiated would be links to other helpful pages (when possible).

Are there sufficient examples given to clarify key points?

Mostly yes. I would expand upon the previously mentioned ionic mechanism a little more to clarify the preference in addition order (if there is one). You also mention the example of oxidative addition where the oxidation state only changes by one. The inclusion of the general example is nice, but an actual example might also be helpful. I certainly don’t know if there are any useful industrial examples that illustrate this, just something to consider. Otherwise they have done a great job of showing the depth of their topic, and showing adequate examples to understand it (both generally and specifically).

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Yes. Each topic seems to be covered and presented in adequate length, and there is no filler or excess to artificially or unnecessarily lengthen a given section.

Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others?

No. Each topic is adequately covered, with an appropriate amount of detail and explanation. The only thing to consider in this section would be the inclusion of applications in the introduction. Because this section is primarily to introduce those who are unfamiliar with this topic, understanding why oxidative addition is important and how it is used in industry (obviously briefly and simply) could be helpful. Perhaps mentioning the creation of adiponitrile and what it is/used for.

Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?

Yes, it is a very important aspect of organometallic chemistry that was not adequately covered on Wikipedia at the moment. It will greatly enhance the current content while providing an excellent, well formed introduction and overview of the topic.

Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

As mentioned previously, this is an area I feel could be greatly expanded upon. I saw only one example of this (substitution). This should be addressed primarily from the standpoint of providing background that is out of the scope you are trying to address. Another area to consider developing would be applications, if there are any pages about the industrial applications of oxidative addition.

Do the images meet the quality guidelines described in the handbook? Are the Chemdraw stuctures chemically accurate? Have the images been aligned appropriately with the text? Do the images enhance or clarify the topic?

The images all fit the requirements listed, and the orientation works well with how it is organized. A few things to consider though: The image regarding the hydrogenation of an alkene within the applications section. The product does not have the P-P ligand or the H’s labeled. Then the example of MeI adding to Vaska’s complex is probably correct, but the orientation of the square planar molecule was not what I was expecting upon first glance. This is likely just a preference of mine though (and it might also be hard to illustrate it with 2 ligands in the plane of the page on chemdraw as I haven’t done it before). Finally, in the radical section, you have the R-N=N-R species shown as linear. Is this accurate or shown for convenience (and is actually bent)? Not important for the topic as a whole, just something to consider.

Are the references complete and inclusive of textbooks and journal papers?

Yes, there are both textbooks and journals cited. The references provided seem adequate, diverse, and well developed. Be sure to check the formatting of them for consistency though.

Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard to read images and equations or syntax errors.

The presentation is very good and professional. Even better than some currently existing pages I would say. There are many examples of subscript and superscript numbers that need to be corrected (H2 in concerted, SN2 in ionic, SN2 in radical, and many in applications H2, d8, etc.). Be sure to go back and check the page as a whole for these subtleties. I didn’t catch any spelling or grammatical errors during my reading.

Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of 3 sections, 3 figures, 8 references)?

Yes, they have provided more than the minimum in all the required areas.

Section 2

Provide a short summary of the entire site, highlighting both what the group did well as well as what needs to be improved.

Overall I would say that I am impressed with the page you all have created. You have taken a complicated organometallic topic such as oxidative addition, and have covered the history, background, details, and applications in a very accessible way. The structure and layout are very professional and looks better than many existing pages. There are certain things to expand upon to enhance the understanding (applications), things to provide in order to increase accessibility (links to other pages), and nitpicky things to enhance presentation (sub/superscripts). Other than these small suggestions mentioned above (which could be personal preference in some cases), you have done an outstanding job thus far, and I hope you find my comments helpful. I look forward to seeing the final product.

-Zachary Bryan

Oxidative addition

Contributing does not mean replacing the existing article with whatever you have. It is improving the existing one. Some others may view your copy-and-replace job as vandalism. You broke all the important things hidden at the bottom of the article too. Don't do that. Read WP:MOS and WP:CHEMMOS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Another comment

I didnt think that the contribution was very good either. Maybe you want to upload small section and then see how each section gets edited. I recomend that you work with Wikipedia, not drop your school essay on top of it. The artwork was poor quality (font selection, white space). I dont care for the history, either. So be patient, pick out your favorite section and upload that. References: Wikipedia wants general references (WP:SECONDARY, we want titles, and we want doi's. Good luck and feel free to ask questions at Talk:Oxidative addition. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chem507f10grp2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel that the content of the page was greatly expanded with the edits I have made. The original page was very limited in scope and did not fully cover the subject. I agree that the edits needed some revision, which I was in the middle of doing when I was blocked from editing. If you would look more closely you would see that the new page adds numerous references and figures, and was well received by peers in the course for which it was constructed.

Accept reason:

user agrees to discuss changes. Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your email

I've received your email. You can still communicate here. The reason why you were blocked is simple:

1. rather than integrate your content into the existing article (or explaining how the existing article was unsalvageable with a note on the talk page), you simply replaced the existing content with whatever you had.
2. when I reverted your last contribution, I explained exactly why. Smokefoot also gave you some comments. Rather than working with what the existing material, you simply insisted on your preferred version.

In your email, you talked about how you would like me to discuss my (our?) concerns with you. I did just that. When I edit your talk page, you should have a big orange "new messages" sign on the top of every WP page; you simply could not have missed it.

If you want to discuss further, we'll do it here. But do note that we are not YouTube. There's little value in you (and your friends) simply dumping essays on WP and walking away. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Your Email

I guess I can start by admitting that I did not find your comments at first. I looked for them in the discussion section of the oxidative addition page. That being said, I still feel that many of the revisions that I would like to make really improve the quality of the page. Like for instance, the discussion of oxidative addition mechanisms.

I would also like to add, that I would appreciate you addressing me with a little more respect. We've put a lot of work into this solely for the sake of improving the wikipedia page, and do not intent to simply "walk away".

A lot of this has resulted from my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, though I feel that should not immediately invalidate my contribution.

I am willing to work with you guys to keep some of the old content and accommodate any suggestions you may have, now that I know how...assuming you give me the chance.

You seem to be under the impression that OA is only organometallic, only transition metal, only 2e. These are the kinds of views that new students have but you will learn more later when your teacher explains matters more. And the artwork is not so great. You did not respond to previous comments. Etc etc. My suggestion: why dont you organize your bit into a section on mechanism.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The existing page doesn't address this either. If you have additional information that you would like to see included, I would have no objection to you adding it.

The page won't get any better though, if you don't allow any edits.

I also really don't appreciate the way that both of you have been addressing me. I'm just as capable of seeking out and understanding information as either of you, and don't need a "teacher" to clarify things for me.

Now that I understand how the forum works, I would really like to work with you to improve the page. This will be really difficult though, if you don't lose the condescending attitude. Chem507f10grp2

(edit conflict)It's strange that you didn't see my comments (or Smokefoot's). Like I said, there should be a big orange bar at the top of every WP page you open. We tried to talk to you but in the end, the block was necessary to get your attention.

You speak of respect. Maybe you (collectively) will walk away, maybe you won't; there are 8 or so groups from your class, multiplied by three or so, total ~ 24. There's no disrespect in pointing out that statistically, few to none of you will stick around after your class is over. Afterall, you're not the first nor the last class to do projects in WP.

If you feel that you can contribute meaningfully, I'll unblock you. But if you are unable to work with the existing material (i.e. you insist on replacing rather than revising the existing text), then you'll have to find someplace else to do your project. I know you're new, and you might not be aware, but reverting like you did several times without dropping a comment on the previous editor's talk page or on the talk page of the article is considered extremely rude hereabouts.) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said above, I am new to the editing process, and did not know to look for the comments in my discussion section. I apologize for that as I know it must be frustrating. Now that I know where to look, I am happy to discuss edits to the page.

I did not however feel that reverting all of the revisions was well justified from your end either. The existing page is pretty limited, and all me and my classmates were trying to do was expand on it. It seems to me like you have sought to block all of the changes we have made. I would suggest that you instead, that you make your own edits leaving what you like and replacing what you don't.

Whether or not any of us "stick with it" seems irrelevant to me. We are all trying in good faith to make a positive contribution, and anyone else is free to add to and improve upon that as they see fit.

To compromise, I will add some new content, working around what is already there. Feel free to make edits to the text, and to contact me regarding edits to the figures etc.

I will also make my own user account (not affiliated with the course) so that I will be better able to keep up with revisions to the page.

Also, I'm sorry for not following the proper procedure in attempting to repost the edits I had made. I simply didn't know better. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings by editing over what they had done, and I do realize that it was a mistake to replace the existing material rather that proposing changes to it.

IP Adress

Could you please also remove my IP address block, so that I can create a non-class affiliated account?

I'll need to know exactly what IP address that is. Just as well, can you please sign your comments with --~~~~ - four tildes. This will put your nick and timestamp after your comments. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

98.209.22.177

--Chem507f10grp2 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Let me know if it doesn't work. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

--Chem507f10grp2 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the new account I will be using for future edits to the page --Tycarter (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)